The conservation debate

Dear Sir, Allow me to reply to Inge Mathiesen’s let ter {PIM March). Mathiesen had it all wrong with regards to my previous letter of December 1996. He absolutely misread the whole thrust of that missive.

Mathiesen exudes the arrogance of a person who thinks he can bulldoze his beliefs and values down the throat of oth ers. If Mathiesen has not experienced “life on atolls”, he should stop writing nonsen sical and insulting letters. He knows less than enough of such places.

Tell us, Mathiesen, whose fault was it that your darling whale population had decreased since the 19705? Definitely not Pacific Island nations’. Direct your com plaint about the whales, the dolphins, and the driftnets to those countries concerned.

Not to us. The people of the Pacific whose ancestors came and settled on these islands continually struggled to survive in a very trying environment. A major part of that struggle is shared with the vast ocean that surrounds the islands. Indeed, through the centuries, island peoples have developed and refined ways of using the meagre land and marine resources. Island people do not thrive in abstract idealism. They use all available land and marine resources, knowing fully well that if they overuse them, they too will have to pay the price.

To the island people, life is a reality they have to negotiate, daily. We do not have luxuries and huge land areas which, Mathiesen, who live thousands of miles away in Montana, might probably have.

Mathiesen alluded to the rising popula tion as one of the major problems threaten ing mankind. This is not only a simplistic argument but a downright insult to others who have healthy populations. Mathiesen and his like may be disposable/dispens able.We are not! Certainly, the world’s population is increasing but, so far, I have not heard any “explosions”. The only explosions thus far documented in the Pacific were those initiated by Mathiesen’s own country - USA - the only country that has used atomic bombs on a civilian popu lation. Moreover, the environment and the people of the Marshall Islands were and still are affected by the H-bombs tested in their vicinity.

Unlike Mathiesen, I would not lower myself to the status of a turtle or a dolphin.

Island people understand that humans, ani mals and sea creatures cannot - and must not - be simplistically compared. So I can fully understand why island people, on special occasions, kill for food - turtles.

But they do not do it in a manner that Mathiesen’s people would do. In fact, we cultivate and harvest turtles. I would not hesitate to aver that if Mathiesen had a choice he wuld have opted to be a whale, a dolphin, or a turtle rather than be a human.

To Mathiesen, it seems that another extra human life would mean impending doom and disaster for the world.

As for me, I would rather be a human, listen to and accept advice from Pacific Islanders and others who know and live what they are saying and doing than to refer to the likes of Mathiesen who assume they can think for and represent others.

Timeon Ioane,

Honolulu, Hawaii